The forum on my home page
"Product development process and chief examiner system (79 cases)" and "TPS study session (23 cases)"
There are 102 articles in 2 categories.
In "Product Development Process and Chief Examination System", I wrote about the outstanding talent of the project manager's chief engineer, including the introduction of successive chief engineers, especially on the planning and conception stage theme.
The "Study Group on TPS" describes the basics of TPS.
We recommend that you read these. There will be a time when it will be helpful to you.
In addition, I believe that we must not forget about the accumulation of design know-how, which is the driving force for advancing the design process.
About my awareness of problems related to the accumulation of design know-how
Since being a company member, I have promoted KAIZEN activities with the development and design people.
At first, the technician didn't ask me.
However, as they continued their KAIZEN activities together, they began to review, "Is it worthwhile to be pointed out not only by engineers but also from an objective perspective?".
For example, when I visualized a conversation in DR.
Since the engineers are devoted to DR, I have never thought that primary education was lacking in the first place.
They look at the mistakes in the design drawings and technical problems in advance. If there are any improvements to improve the design, the lack of primary education means a lack of basic education. I'm not thinking.
I noticed and pointed out their blind spot.
They didn't understand my point from the beginning, but I had to admit it because it was a transcription of the conversation and the facts were clear.
Through these activities, I learned a lot.
The development and design process has the same flow as the production line.
The work is transformed into a physical form and completed on the production line.
In the development/design process, information, not work, flows while changing and is passed on to the production line through design drawings and parts lists.
If you look at it with a high degree of abstraction, it seems that manufacturing companies have almost the same process.
The flow is the same in that information is transformed into products.
Currently, I am focusing on product development with people in other development and design industries.
We support Kaizen with a focus on cost planning, which is the key to product development.
Visualizing the process at the most critical part of the entrance to product development and creating costs while making improvements (= cost planning) has been very effective.
When I am working with them, I will encounter various problems and issues.
They faced a drawing that had no problems in the past for the first time, even though they drew it as it was.
It was a case where a past mistake became apparent and a problem.
I found by digging deep into it with the design members and why-why analysis that the drawings were not maintained, even though there were problems in the past.
In the case of another company similar to this, they found mistakes in the manufacturing stage in the past. Still, the person in charge of manufacturing corrected the parts, assembled them, and shipped them.
It turns out that I didn't feed that fact back into the design.
When I found out the cause, it was "what was this?", But it wasn't happening, and it's a common phenomenon again.
Similar things are happening in multiple companies.
The lack of maintenance of the blueprints indicates that the revision control mechanism has become a dead letter.
It is a fact. In the case I faced a few years ago, it's unlikely that an increasingly busy designer could improve this.
I must say that this case is a little lower dimension, but it is pretty serious that the same thing is happening in the design field of many companies.
In the first place, there are only three weeks of design work: (1) new drawings, (2) diversion drawings, and (3) repeat drawings.
(3) Repeat drawings will not cause problems unless the above cases occur.
And in reality, (1) when creating a new drawing, it is said that it is about 10% of the total.
If so, except for (3), (2) diversion drawings account for 90% of all drawings.
It is something I've faced recently, and while diversion is most of the designer's job, choosing the proper diversion seems to be a surprisingly high hurdle.
It has become clear that the selection of diversion maps is often left to the designer in charge, and it may not be possible to select the correct one simply by making judgments on the drawings.
However, to select a diversion diagram, it is necessary to determine the purpose and concept of the design firm.
You can't judge without vital information that you can't judge from drawings and bills of materials (BOM) and shouldn't be overlooked.
If they select the correct diversion diagram, it is necessary to understand the functions and roles required for the particular product.
However, the problem is that, in reality, the diversion source is selected only with the simple feeling that it is "similar."
The rationale for choosing a diversion source must be clear.
I've heard that the "technical system diagram" used by old engineers was omitted before I knew it.
The technical system diagram is a breakdown of what kind of technology the product is made up of to create the product.
In a situation where this is organized, and each technology hanging in the system diagram exists only as the head data of engineers, how can we inherit and develop the critical technology?
I think that recording and accumulating the grounds, such as the purpose of the design and why they adopt the technology for each system diagram, will lead to the "design know-how document".
If you take a quick look at the know-how required for each design process, I think the know-how in the following steps will become necessary.
Selection of diversion model
Realization of design of necessary functions
Structural design of parts
Evaluation from a unified perspective
Achievements of intersection / variation
By the way, is this kind of know-how accumulated in your workplace?
Let's look at the fifth, "Achievements of intersections and variations".
As a result of considering variations in mass production trial production and mass production stage, it becomes clear that "this is the configuration".
This experience is then.
I can say that the knowledge that "if you make a product with such a shape, it should have such a variation" should be able to be judged to some extent in the past results.
However, suppose this know-how is left alone, and a new part is designed without considering this variation. In that case, it will be necessary to predict the variation for the new part again.
This prediction is hazardous.
If the designer knows all the production and processing know-how, there is nothing that they can not do.
In reality, few designers know everything about production. Moreover, since the evidence for new predictions is suspicious, the accuracy of the predictions is not very reliable.
Therefore, it is necessary to predict that "this part should vary so much" based on past achievements.
The critical idea in such a case is the idea of "side by side".
Try side-by-side information on similar shape tolerances and variations of past products to see if there are any especially popping data.
If the shape is similar this time, the intersections and variations should be within the range of this side-by-side arrangement.
Nevertheless, if it pops out especially, you can realize that your thinking, calculations, etc., may be wrong.
In that sense, past tolerances and variability records can be relied on if they can view side by side.
Even if you have to dare to create detailed pop-out data, it would be nice if the reason was apparent.
It is also crucial know-how. It is not uncommon to say that this is not recorded, and if you try to make a new prediction without accumulating it, you will make a mistake, becoming a big problem.
In many companies, these know-hows usually exist in the minds of experienced people (head data) in a form that individuals can only use.
So far, I have promoted improvement support with product development as the primary focus.
The importance of the product development process has begun to settle in the minds of the Kaizen members.
Of course, I will continue to improve the product development process. Still, I have begun to propose a mechanism to visualize the head data of experienced people as much as possible and utilize it for subsequent product development.